Pages

Friday, February 13, 2009

hold your horses

Just stumbled across this abstract in an NBER Reporter I downloaded while searching for something else altogether:

Putting Computerized Instruction to the Test: A Randomized Evaluation of a "Scientifically-based" Reading Program

Although schools across the country are investing heavily in computers in the classroom, there is surprisingly little evidence that they actually improve student achievement. In this paper we present results from a randomized study of a well-defined use of computers in schools: a popular instructional computer program, known as Fast ForWord, which is designed to improve language and reading skills. We assess the impact of the program using four different measures of language and reading ability. Our estimates suggest that while use of the computer program may improve some aspects of students' language skills, it does not appear that these gains translate into a broader measure of language acquisition or into actual reading skills.

Working Paper 10315
(pdf file)
NBER Working Paper Series
Cecilia Rouse
Alan B. Krueger
with Lisa Markman

It's not too often you read a peer-reviewed abstract whose tone could be described as droll.

I like droll.

Here's the intro:
According to the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 37 percent of 4th graders in the U.S. read below a basic level and an additional 31 percent read at a basic level, as determined by the National Assessment Governing Board (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Currie and Thomas (2001) find that scores on a reading test taken at age 7 by participants in the British National Child Development Study are positively correlated with their earnings and likelihood of employment at age 33. Furthermore, adults who score higher on the literacy test in the Adult Literacy Survey have a greater probability of working and higher earnings if they do work (see, e.g., Sum, 1999). While the interpretation of the correlation between literacy and employment outcomes is unclear, it is very likely that improving literacy skills for troubled readers would generate important economic and social benefits.

When we all finally get tired advocating for edu-reform (or edu-revolution, as the case may be), we can take up the cause of simplified spelling.

I certainly intend to.


Mark Twain on simplified spelling
more from Twain
Diane McGuinness on the trouble with English spelling
H.L. Mencken on simplified spelling
Theodore Roosevelt's List of Simplified Spellings
Simplified Spelling Society

5 comments:

  1. I have to dissent on this one.

    I don't care that it's hard, contradictory, and illogical, but I absolutely love the jumbled mess of illogic and archaicisms which comprise the English language. I can accept a gradual shift over time - evolution is a good thing - but a deliberate, systematic effort to separate ourselves from our verbal heritage? To me, that's even worse than the French academy's well-meaning, but misguided efforts to preserve their language exactly as it is.

    I never thought of myself as a cultural conservative, but this is one moment where I'll gladly stand athwart history, shouting 'Stop!'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't care that it's hard, contradictory, and illogical, but I absolutely love the jumbled mess of illogic and archaicisms which comprise the English language,

    I know -- me, too!

    ReplyDelete
  3. this is one moment where I'll gladly stand athwart history, shouting 'Stop!'

    lolllll!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete